How do you reconcile the fact that the Federalists recognized that it was the relative equality of power (meaning wealth or oppurtunity for wealth) that allowed democracy and liberal ideology to take hold in colonial America?
Under their ideology it is the governments duty to ensure there is some measure of equality in oppurtunity for wealth creation and that only the factional infighting of equally powerful interests would allow democracy to survive. Your value on liberty seems shortsighted in comparison with the greatest political documents ever written.
Badnarik's proposals allow for defacto reductions of liberty by private groups rather than government sponsored reductions as much as it promises liberty. Since Badnarik admits his proposals are radical, then logically they will create a certain amount of chaos. Chaos is oppurtunity for both tyrants and saints, without mapping how he would insure that the resulting chaos would not be detrimental to this country, his proposals are no better than any other radical. Badnarik sounds as if he will depend on Congress and the Courts to balance his radicalism, which makes sense from an ideological perspective, but is not real-politik.
The government must protect against some inequalities to a certain degree or we will all lose our liberties. Read the Federalist Papers and the AntiFederalist Papers, then read the surrounding commentaries. They explicitly discuss equality.
This is what happens when Americans confuse their culture or morality with the business of the government. It's logically consistent in his own mind, but inconsistent with the founding ideology of the country. Keyes, like Buchanan, believes in a theocratic mythology of America. At least Buchanan realizes that his ideas along this line aren't getting him anywhere and that he gets much more exposure using his intelligence for political analysis. Remember that Buchanan was the one who claimed that the US was in a culture war at the GOP convention, a meme the GOP, and Alan Keyes, have embraced.
Being a natural born US citizen, my negative views of Bush mostly stem from Bush's actions and policies as reported by the Federal Government, US mainstream media, US independent media, foreign mainstream media and foreign independent media.
I have a very keen grasp of America, it's people, it's culture and it's history. Bush is the antithesis of the American Revolution. This idiot - and after today's performance with Alawi I don't see how you can call him anything but - has done more damage to this country than most will realize for a long time.
It doesn't take a genius or a PhD in American History to see this, just a working factual knowledge of Western Civilization's history and dialectic reasoning. Anyone in Europe should be adequately capable of commenting on American politics, at least the same percentage as Americans qualified to comment.
The parent's comment about the irrelavence of Bush's personality is spot on. I've never had a beer with a US President, but I continuously have to deal with their policies and their positions on issues. The thrust of the parent's comment was actually regarding the Fairness Doctrine and is absolutely correct in that regard. The consolidation of power in media is alarming and a danger to the American Revolution.
Your negative view of foreigners mostly stem from the excessively negative portrayal they get in American media.
Why anyone takes this loon seriously is mindblowing. This is the guy that called Hillary Clinton a carpetbagger for moving to New York to run for the Senate and then moved to Illinois to do the same. I guess this is just par for the course for the GOP these days though. Nothing, and I mean nothing, is going to help this guy win against Obama. There's no contest.
As for polls, who cares. It's better than 24/7 coverage of IBM typewriters and 30+ year old war stories.
In case you hadn't noticed, I said it wasn't interesting. I haven't been paying attention since people started quibling over fonts and typewriters of the 1970's. I stated that Bush's Guard record doesn't matter, I'm sure that if I felt compelled I could point out enough inconsistencies to force you to re-assert your position and we could go round and round over minutae that can neither be fully proven nor disproven. You're ignoring the substance of my position and attacking an issue I consider entirely irrelevant.
Dan Rather was uncovered in a week, and liberals readily admitted he was wrong. The secretary to the purported author of the documents backed up the content, claiming it to be true. Since she was directly involved with the situations in question, she is a primary source, just like real documents would be.
The news, however, is still debating whether or not systemized torture and murder was carried out along with other violations of US and International law, over a year after the first reports.
The CIA hid over 100 detainees from the Red Cross in violation of US law. How long till they break the law for you?
The media has been infected by a corporatist virus that allows wealthy right-wing nuts buy their message. The entire issue of Bush's Service or lack thereof is irrelevant, he's already the Commander in Chief during hostilities. The GOP attacks on Kerry are equally irrelevant. The connections between the GOP leadership and the right wing media are well documented. They have used this message machine to infect the public debate. They use numerous front groups masquerading as think tanks, FOX News, the Washington Times, talk-radio, and the Christian Broadcast Network (Pat Robertson's group). Their surrogates float the ideas and keep it alive in the media, no matter how disproven. Dick Cheney is still claiming links between Saddam Hussein and Al Quaeda, even though all evidence has been thoroughly discredited and the main source of information (Chalabi) has serious credibility issues at this point.
The GOP is openly calling themselves theocratic nationalists. Look at their platform, listen to their message machine. The only consistency are cultural assumptions and how they prey on them. As early as 1988 they were openly declaring a culture war in this country.
Although they are advocating policies that lead to reducing the separation between church and state, concentrating wealth (trickle down econ, starve the beast), reduce rights (tort reform, overtime laws) and acting against the good of the citizens (outsourcing policies, reduction of entitlements, no pharma price controls), the media refuses to question the validity of their ideas, acting as if they are on par with others. The idea that anyone in the US military or intelligence agency should be able to violate US law, which includes the Geneva Convention, is wrong. There should not be anymore debate on this than there should be on slavery.
Anyone who contributed to these crimes, including the military and civilian leadership, should be prosecuted. Rumsfeld had reports of abuse from the Red Cross in Oct, 2003. The lack of concern of the treatment of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq is well documented, these people are culpable with violations aof US law.
Yet the media still take it seriously when people defend them by minimalizing the systematic nature of the abuses or claim that abuse was justified, even though it is prohibited by US law. You can't claim extraordinary circumstances when actions are so widespread. This is a nation of law. The second we seek to subvert the law, we become no better than those barbarians that attacked us. This country does not believe that the ends justify the means, we let that idea die with our enemies.
As far as I'm concerned any so called liberal bias is simply the wish of the American people not to subsidize bad ideas.
Communism and Fascism are natural political enemies. It was Communists that went off to the gas chambers along with the Jews, Gypsies and Gays systematically. Communists in the US during the rise of Hitler wrote that American Fascism, if it were to rise, would have a theocratic form of nationalism. The GOP certainly has been running for the theocratic vote.
Remember that the fascists tried to get General Butler to execute a coup d'etat against Roosevelt in the 30's. The also campaigned to leave Hitler alone. Many wealthy people, including Edward VIII of England, were personal friends of Hitler. These were the people who believed in things like Social Darwinism.
Most of the descendents of these people are now in the GOP. They tend to trend more libertarian except for Corporate Welfare, they believe that by vitue of their wealth, they are better people than the rest of us slobs. They see the theocrats as a tool to be used for their rise to power.
No slave ever got freedom by happily pleasing his masters.
Again, bad logic. You've provided a false dichotomy. Choose the second option all you want, it doesn't mean it's based in reality. NAFTA did send a lot of jobs outside the US, go ask anyone who lost a manufacturing job to Mexico. Outsourcing is a bad deal. It's sending middle class jobs and a strong tax base overseas for what? What has come back? Where are the new industries building on top of this and creating jobs? Why would you even start that industry in this country instead of India?
Free Trade only works among equals. We are not equal to any other country or economy in the world. Free Trade is a one way street for this country where we lose. Fair Trade is the only way we can grow and ensure that the promises of globalization are realized.
The current situation is being buoyed by the floating of our currency by China and other developing countries so that they can artifically lower their currency and keep the growth coming at our expense, literally.
You're solution is to smile while we trade good middle class jobs and quality American products for cheap Chinese crap at Wal-Mart and non-service from India. Excuse me if I hold higher asperations for my country.
There's no other way to say it. YOU ARE WRONG. Not just a little wrong, but really really wrong.
It matters, it matters a lot. Concentration of wealth is the single greatest threat to our democracy and the American Revolution. Go read the Federalist Papers. This "class-warfare claptrap", as you call it, is real. Perhaps Marie Antionette or the Bolsheviks could give you a little refresher. Your example is crap to boot. The current recovery has seen corporate profits grow by 62.2% while private wages have fallen by.06%. In the previous 8 recoveries, since the Great Depression, the average growth was split at about 13.9% corporate profit and 9.9% labor with private wage growth of 7.2%.
There is a point, which can't be defined, where the concentration of wealth becomes so great that the probability that the wealthy will wind up in a losing deal falls to such a point that there is no way to get ahead. New growth is dominated by the wealthy (see the cronyism of 90's IPO's), those without wealth have no choice but to scramble for scraps from the table. This results in defacto tyranny and lack of opportunity. It results in stagnation of innovation, just like when property was controlled entirely by royalty and the church in Europe.
The purpose of the Revolution was to ensure that no citizen is forced to live the life of a slave (obvious exception for slaves, who weren't citizens). When you don't have choices, you are a slave. It doesn't matter if that lack of choice comes from government or private means.
Some men can work 40 hours a week and easily support himself, but there are millions of Americans that can't. The number of people living below the poverty line has increased by 1.4 million in the last year alone. Your argument is like saying the serfs were better off because their lords protected them from roving gangs of bandits. The facts disagree with your estimate of the welfare of the poor in this country.
Go look up Noah Webster, he wrote on the side of the Federalists and either Madison or Hamilton's request (can't remember which). Your arguements are nothing more than straw men. Go read some primary sources, look at the whole picture and apply some logic.
Wealth is real power. If the scales become tipped too far, our entire country will fail. The parent isn't insightful, it's naive. It's a modern version of "If they have no bread, let them eat cake!".
Uhhhh.... I was with you until this: If you hate what is happening to our country, the USA, then please write the following on the November ballot.
president: Bill O'Reilly vice-president: Tammy Bruce
Seriously, I've said the same stuff about the situation with India and China, just got finished mentioning it before I saw this post. But, and this is a big but, your conclusion makes abso-fscking-lutely no sense whatsoever. Bill OReilly can't keep left and right straight, much less understand how the hell to deal with pushing Fair Trade instead of Free Trade.
How would an anti-Union, pro-Corporate shill for the right do jack to help the American Worker?
I was really expecting to see you throw support to John Kerry, but WTF? Did I miss a joke somewhere?
Toqueville was the one (IIRC) that said America would prosper until it's citizens found out they could vote to pay themselves. However, that does not mean that all entitlements are vote buying ventures. The fact that it has lasted through three generations when the ones who payed outnumbered those getting paid supports my original statement much more than yours. Yes, that's right, the working population outnumbers the seniors.
If you temporarily go into debt for a couple of years but increase spending, your income is going to have to grow at an exponential rate to get back into the black anytime soon. Even if your prediction of the Bush tax cuts is accurate, that does nothing about the massive damage incurred in the meantime. The economy is doing good enough to justify the costs of those tax cuts.
Military weapons programs are more about vote buying than any social safety net this country has come up with. I wouldn't hold out on the Dems for getting the budget balanced. That's going to take a long time, no matter who is in office. With our current military expenditures in foreign countries that cannot be reduced and the slow growth of our economy, there will be little ability for anyone to change the budget situation. New revenues will need to be used to build up our infrastructure to maintain our ability to compete. We cannot sacrifice that in order to balance the budget. There has been talk for some time that this was part of the strategy of the GOP called "Starve the Beast".
If you come in and kill all these programs, that's a lot of American jobs that are going to go away. The Federal Government is one of the largest employers in the country (if not the largest).
Peace and international support for peacekeeping missions are our best hope. That and taking the kid gloves off with India and China. Underestimating those two will screw us worse than any Bush tax cut ever could. We need to focus on growth, to do that we need investment and discipline. Bush has just ensured that growth is going to be slower than necessary for the next decade.
If 6.5% up to the first $87K per year for guaranteed retirement income that will cover a basic standard of living (minus health care) is draconian, I don't know what to tell you where to put your money. Social Security also pays disability to you if you can no longer work.
As for being a scam, yes there's a problem that the system can only pay for itself if there are more working people than people collecting benefits. However, these previous generations payed for your education, built the roads you use, the sewer systems, etc, etc, etc. Go watch The Life of Brian again where everyone is complaining about the Romans, you'll get the picture.
I can't say I entirely disagree with your position on the boomers, but I do disagree with your example. Your anger is misdirected. Social Security and other programs are not your problem. Your tax bill is not the problem. Your idea is to redivide the pie of your paycheck, you should be worried about how to grow your paycheck. Average incomes have been falling since a peek in the early 70's before either of us were born. You'd be making $6000 more a year in real dollars in 1970 with your current salary. Life is much more competitive for us than our parents. You can blame the previous two generations' culture wars for a lot of this.
What your experiencing is a lack of oppurtunity for growth. The concentration of wealth that occured while everyone was worried that drug using, free loving hippies were going to destroy the world, along with the commies, has put you and the rest of us in the middle class at a competitive disadvantage. The Founding Fathers warned us of this. The Federalists claimed that factionalism among equals would sustain the balance of power. Noah Webster, writing in support of the Federalists, stated that power was actually wealth. If you look at the history of our country, through the 19th century we gave everyone who wanted to move West a family farm. Once the industrial revolution hit, there wasn't as much good farm land left, and family farming wasn't a great way to get ahead. With a growing population, most people wound up working in factories, regulations were required to ensure these people weren't exploited to the point where society was damaged. That's how we wound up with Unions, labor law, 40 hour weeks and Social Security. The first half of the 20th century had a large number of victories which helped to create the prosperity (along with wartime spending, GI Bill) that the boomers have been using up.
Our modern society requires that we have stable foundations to grow, new industries like utilities create that foundation. Innovation won't happen when the only place to build the future is shifting sands. Social safety nets also create that foundation. You can take risks if you have a safety net. If your in the middle class, that safety net can mean the difference between poverty and bouncing back from a risk that goes bad. These anti-government, anti-regulation fools are handing the keys to the kingdom to the hands of our future masters. Concentration of wealth is the greatest threat the our country.
If you want to solve this problem, learn law. I don't mean learn how to sue people, I mean an academic understanding of the ideals of law and it's history. It's just as scientific a field as programming. When you understand this and can apply it to the world around you, you will be able to identify your challenges and your enemies. This country has forgotten it's history and have attached to some mythological idea born of anti-intellectualism. Embrace that history and remember that it is your right, no one grants it to you because the Constitution guarantees it to you, if no one will honor this right then you must take it. If this society or system will not provide it, then it no longer has just authority over you. You are not the one failing to live up to the deal, they are.
As for immediate action, stay calm, vote every chance you get (vote Democrat right now, after the election, different story), study law and le
The basis of authority for Social Security is not morality. It's a recognition that we are not willing to let old people simply starve and die in the streets. If we believe that a person has the right to emergency health care, regardless of ability to pay, then it makes sense to pursue policy that decreases the amount of emergency care required by those who cannot pay. Leaving old folks to fend for themselves creates an environment
Your right about the safety net functions, but this is a recognition of a more advanced and complex society and the rights that must be recognized in order to achieve growth in this modern world. I believe that is a more accurate description of the heart of the New Deal. No law in the US, no matter how "good" or "moral", can use morality as it's basis for authority and remain valid. Laws who's only basis of authority is moral violate the principle of equal protection under the law.
The GOP economic policy of so-called ownership is about taking ownership of risk, not providing opportunity. If you look at all of their proposals and replace the word opportunity with risk they start to match with reality instead of looking like some ideologue's fantasy. Check out this column by Harold Meyerson, which lays out this concept very clearly.
Come on people, owning a machine gun doesn't mean crap when the other guy has smart bombs. The whole idea that we should own guns to keep our own government from opprssing us is just wishful thinking, quit dreaming of Rambo and crack a law book.
I've got more respect for McCain than that. He came out against the SwiftBoat lies, so I don't think one can assume he just sitting around kissing Bush's ass.
Who from the Nixon Whitehouse is either, young enough to run still, not convicted of a felony and a natural born citizen? McCain may be a good bet for 2008's GOP nomination, but I'm not sure how you managed to tie in Nixon. The Bush Whitehouse is the last stand of those old Nixonians.
Uhhh.... yeah it's the Democrats who came up with this horrible tactic.
It's the dems trying to keep insanely far-right wing judges off the bench, using the RULES of the Senate. If you'd read the fine article, you see that they had confirmed over 160 of Bushes nominees and that these 10 are the most extreme of the total bunch he nominated. The GOP used the same tactic against Clinton, but now it's the Dems who came up with this "crazy idea"?
Please explain how the Democrats are trying to get rid of democracy. I do love tinfoil hat inspired rants.
John McCain would never support this. They also won't get both Senators from ME. It won't happen because the GOP can't get 51 votes. This manuever is likely to be divisive like the Gay Marriage Ban, and while most Americans may not be concerned with these little intricacies of the Senate, Senators tend to take it seriously.
Santorum would turn this country into a Judeo-Christian version of Iran if given the chance. Frist is more timid and behind the scenes, but Santorum is a freaking pit-bull for the religious right. My fellow Florida citizens have managed to embaress me about a lot of things, but electing a theocratic loon to the Senate like Santorum takes the cake. I'd have a hard time admitting I was from Penn. every time that guy made the news.
That's interesting. The list of things I'd die for is infinitely shorter than the list of things I'd kill for.
Perhaps your moral view is different than others. Most people can think of things they are will to die for before they can think of things they are willing to kill for.
The Patton quote your paraphrasing is actually supportive of my illutstration. Take the Clausewitz quote, "It is clear that war is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means", and then Patton's quote, "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
You become a martyr, like many Catholic Saints, if you die standing up for your beliefs. You are morally superior in the minds of those who sympathize with your cause. If your goal is to assert your rights, you must be able to defend them. Defending your rights requires power, either you must have that power personally (via wealth) or you must depend on society to provide you with it (via government and law). In other words, when I am standing up for what I believe in morally, I only need to control my actions. If I am standing up for my rights, I require the use of power either personally or through a surrogate like the government to coerce the actions of another.
If you are acting immoral, but are not violating my rights (or anyone else's) then what right do I have to stop you, what surrogate will come to my aid? Where most people become confused is when they only see a moral justification for a law rather than one derived from a definition of rights. The definition of rights is the only valid way to determine a law's viability for producing justice.
Your morals are what you use to keep yourself alive.
Self-sacrificing actions do not keep you alive, yet are considered moral. Martyrs are considered supremely moral in their own culture.
Your rights are what you expect society to grant you in order for you to stay alive.
Again, I'm not only willing to die to defend my rights, I'm willing to kill you if you are denying my rights. Actions that may have been immoral before now become moral if I am defending my rights.
A person's mere willingness to die -- or kill -- doesn't mean anything, because people can be rational or irrational
Your trying to turn a simple illustration into an axiom. Of course the illustration assumes rationality and also assumes threat of equal retribution for aggression. The illustration is of the fact that the law is a series of non-aggression pacts, not statements of moral reasoning.
Today's radicals prefer to base their decisions on some ideology or other, but inevitably an ideology which itself is based on faith.
I noted this by pointing out the similarities between the far-left and far-right and the basis of their ideas in their own concepts of morality. The only faith required in the system I am describing is faith that the government is acting to protect your rights and is not trying to impose a moral worldview. When that faith breaks down, you have to worry about violence erupting over real or percieved injustice.
Then you've got the middle, which is just a bunch of compromisers and appeasers who stand for nothing.
So I either have to believe that my idea of God should drive our law or that my hatred of capitalism should or I stand for nothing? How does that make sense? The Founding Fathers were a bunch of comprimisers and appeasers who believed in nothing? You have no clue what your saying. You are appearently ignorant of the ideological and legal evolution of the American Revolution and Western Civilization.
Politics is about distilling rights. There is no other purpose. Either I can enforce my percieved rights by force, or I can use politics. It is clear that war is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means - Karl von Clausewitz.
A society can be organized in a life-promoting way, or in a way that poses a mortal danger to its members.
This makes no sense. Which society organized itself in a way that poses a mortal danger for it's members? The Jim Jones Cult? Society's organization has far more to do with culture than it does a political system. Is the UK more "life-affirming" than India, they have similiar political systems?
The purpose of law is not to impose views on people, it's to prevent them from killing each other.
That's my point. People are willing to kill each other over many real and percieved injuries. If you cannot figure out how to live side-by-side with people of different cultures and religions, you will wind up killing each other. Western Law is the progression of finding peaceful cohabitation of different religious and cultural views. Rome fell because it couldn't absorb new cultures, only new territory. Beyond that it's an eternal struggle to define rights and refine the law.
History is the only guide to that. But extreme moderates like you do not understand it.
I doubt you want to get into a debate over the history of Western Law with me. I may not be an expert on the subject, but I've studied it far more than most. "Extreme Moderate"? I'll take that as a badge of honor! My basis for authority of law is consistent with history. My ideas for valid political ideas and invalid ones are based in history. I think I have a fairly good understanding of history's role in this discussion.
You think that there is no difference between facts and feelings, no difference between one view and another, no difference between imposing views on people by f
Re:Not to self-aggrandize...
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 1
The law is just programming humans. You probably could be a lawyer, the body of law is supposed to be a logically consistent work. Anything inconsistent is supposed to be thrown out. Lawyers do a lot of wrangling, trying to prove authority for laws and trying to disprove it. This guy went through and proved his position, you just had a hunch. Think about it this way, a lot of people had the same hypothosis for a problem that required a very difficult experiment. This guy went out and conducted the experiment and is publishing the results.
Would you claim to have the same level of insight as a scientist who just got published for something you had thought about, but never tested?
The law is published. It's history, it's current status, and precedent. You can access all of it through your local library. Thinking that it should be in unexact language is folly. That's like saying science shouldn't be so precise because memorizing Latin terms is so hard. Western Law traces it's origin to Rome and encompasses every aspect of human activity. Our current legal system is a iterative development project that has been worked on for 2200 years. The precision of language and dedication to dialectic reasoning is what has made it such a useful tool for society. You might understand how a monolithic kernel works, does that mean Linus should make you top priority for patches?
If you want to change society, learn how to change the law. If you want to change the law, RTFM.
While I think the moral-right are a bunch of slow learners, I don't dismiss the threat they pose. If the Bushies were interested in simply paying them lip-service, they would have stuck with the states-rights position on gay marriage, since that is seen as a Conservative position. I also think you have to realize that the faith-based program initiatives, including charter schools, don't actually save any money. That is how they were sold to the moderate Conservatives, as a way to get the social spending accounts off their books and on someone elses. The truth of the matter is that most moderate Conservatives think that a lot of this posturing is politically convenient lip-service, but in truth it's become more than that lately.
You could argue that the current round of unconstitutional initiatives proposed by our great leader are still just feed for the base, but I think Bush and Co. do truly support the base's position, just not as fanatically. That's why they're willing to keep putting out this crap legislation, if something sticks, it's a happy day for the White House.
Your morals are what you are willing to die for. Your rights are what you're willing to kill others for. There may be a lot of things I'm willing to die for, but the list is shorter when I ask what things I'm willing to kill another human for. In other words, I don't give a damn what you're willing to die for, but I'm sure as hell willing to kill you to protect my rights.
The law cannot dictate your moral behavior solely without violating your rights. Faith based Federal programs are a horribly bad idea because there is no way to determine that services are provided without duress, thus inviting the abuse of equality under the law. That said, if you try to impose your moral view on someone else, you're violating their rights. That's why there will be gay marriage in this country without a Consitutional Amendment. There is no legitamite interest of government in discriminating against gays over a secular contract of marriage, only one of cultural morality, which is not valid in a political structure that has no provision for a dominant culture or religion.
Politics isn't centrally about compromise, that's just part of the mechanics. Politics is ultimately about distilling rights so as to create justice, I'm not sure how you managed to get compromise out of my posts. It's probably best that you don't participate in politics, as your moral blinders probably make it impossible for you to formulate valid political ideas. After all, your morals are yours, not some absolute. You have no more authority to pursue youre moral worldview politically than anyone else. This means that, ultimately, you cannot impose your view without violating the principle of equality under the law. Unless you can decrease the arbitrariness of life for all cultures and religions equally, your law is unjust and counter to 1500 years of Western progression.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you reconcile the fact that the Federalists recognized that it was the relative equality of power (meaning wealth or oppurtunity for wealth) that allowed democracy and liberal ideology to take hold in colonial America?
Under their ideology it is the governments duty to ensure there is some measure of equality in oppurtunity for wealth creation and that only the factional infighting of equally powerful interests would allow democracy to survive. Your value on liberty seems shortsighted in comparison with the greatest political documents ever written.
Badnarik's proposals allow for defacto reductions of liberty by private groups rather than government sponsored reductions as much as it promises liberty. Since Badnarik admits his proposals are radical, then logically they will create a certain amount of chaos. Chaos is oppurtunity for both tyrants and saints, without mapping how he would insure that the resulting chaos would not be detrimental to this country, his proposals are no better than any other radical. Badnarik sounds as if he will depend on Congress and the Courts to balance his radicalism, which makes sense from an ideological perspective, but is not real-politik.
The government must protect against some inequalities to a certain degree or we will all lose our liberties. Read the Federalist Papers and the AntiFederalist Papers, then read the surrounding commentaries. They explicitly discuss equality.
This is what happens when Americans confuse their culture or morality with the business of the government. It's logically consistent in his own mind, but inconsistent with the founding ideology of the country. Keyes, like Buchanan, believes in a theocratic mythology of America. At least Buchanan realizes that his ideas along this line aren't getting him anywhere and that he gets much more exposure using his intelligence for political analysis. Remember that Buchanan was the one who claimed that the US was in a culture war at the GOP convention, a meme the GOP, and Alan Keyes, have embraced.
Are you kidding? Shouldn't this be modded Funny?
Being a natural born US citizen, my negative views of Bush mostly stem from Bush's actions and policies as reported by the Federal Government, US mainstream media, US independent media, foreign mainstream media and foreign independent media.
I have a very keen grasp of America, it's people, it's culture and it's history. Bush is the antithesis of the American Revolution. This idiot - and after today's performance with Alawi I don't see how you can call him anything but - has done more damage to this country than most will realize for a long time.
It doesn't take a genius or a PhD in American History to see this, just a working factual knowledge of Western Civilization's history and dialectic reasoning. Anyone in Europe should be adequately capable of commenting on American politics, at least the same percentage as Americans qualified to comment.
The parent's comment about the irrelavence of Bush's personality is spot on. I've never had a beer with a US President, but I continuously have to deal with their policies and their positions on issues. The thrust of the parent's comment was actually regarding the Fairness Doctrine and is absolutely correct in that regard. The consolidation of power in media is alarming and a danger to the American Revolution.
Your negative view of foreigners mostly stem from the excessively negative portrayal they get in American media.
Bush isn't a recovered alcoholic, he's a dry drunk. There's a big difference.
is on my permanent .ignore list.
Why anyone takes this loon seriously is mindblowing. This is the guy that called Hillary Clinton a carpetbagger for moving to New York to run for the Senate and then moved to Illinois to do the same. I guess this is just par for the course for the GOP these days though. Nothing, and I mean nothing, is going to help this guy win against Obama. There's no contest.
As for polls, who cares. It's better than 24/7 coverage of IBM typewriters and 30+ year old war stories.
In case you hadn't noticed, I said it wasn't interesting. I haven't been paying attention since people started quibling over fonts and typewriters of the 1970's. I stated that Bush's Guard record doesn't matter, I'm sure that if I felt compelled I could point out enough inconsistencies to force you to re-assert your position and we could go round and round over minutae that can neither be fully proven nor disproven. You're ignoring the substance of my position and attacking an issue I consider entirely irrelevant.
Dan Rather was uncovered in a week, and liberals readily admitted he was wrong. The secretary to the purported author of the documents backed up the content, claiming it to be true. Since she was directly involved with the situations in question, she is a primary source, just like real documents would be.
The news, however, is still debating whether or not systemized torture and murder was carried out along with other violations of US and International law, over a year after the first reports.
The CIA hid over 100 detainees from the Red Cross in violation of US law. How long till they break the law for you?
The media has been infected by a corporatist virus that allows wealthy right-wing nuts buy their message. The entire issue of Bush's Service or lack thereof is irrelevant, he's already the Commander in Chief during hostilities. The GOP attacks on Kerry are equally irrelevant. The connections between the GOP leadership and the right wing media are well documented. They have used this message machine to infect the public debate. They use numerous front groups masquerading as think tanks, FOX News, the Washington Times, talk-radio, and the Christian Broadcast Network (Pat Robertson's group). Their surrogates float the ideas and keep it alive in the media, no matter how disproven. Dick Cheney is still claiming links between Saddam Hussein and Al Quaeda, even though all evidence has been thoroughly discredited and the main source of information (Chalabi) has serious credibility issues at this point.
The GOP is openly calling themselves theocratic nationalists. Look at their platform, listen to their message machine. The only consistency are cultural assumptions and how they prey on them. As early as 1988 they were openly declaring a culture war in this country.
Although they are advocating policies that lead to reducing the separation between church and state, concentrating wealth (trickle down econ, starve the beast), reduce rights (tort reform, overtime laws) and acting against the good of the citizens (outsourcing policies, reduction of entitlements, no pharma price controls), the media refuses to question the validity of their ideas, acting as if they are on par with others. The idea that anyone in the US military or intelligence agency should be able to violate US law, which includes the Geneva Convention, is wrong. There should not be anymore debate on this than there should be on slavery.
Anyone who contributed to these crimes, including the military and civilian leadership, should be prosecuted. Rumsfeld had reports of abuse from the Red Cross in Oct, 2003. The lack of concern of the treatment of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq is well documented, these people are culpable with violations aof US law.
Yet the media still take it seriously when people defend them by minimalizing the systematic nature of the abuses or claim that abuse was justified, even though it is prohibited by US law. You can't claim extraordinary circumstances when actions are so widespread. This is a nation of law. The second we seek to subvert the law, we become no better than those barbarians that attacked us. This country does not believe that the ends justify the means, we let that idea die with our enemies.
As far as I'm concerned any so called liberal bias is simply the wish of the American people not to subsidize bad ideas.
the average female will find the male with the SUV more attractive than with any other vehicle
/.)
Not about "male inferiority"?
women largely prefer SUVs over other vehicles
This doesn't prove it's not about penis envy (ducks)...
(Thank God the s/o doesn't read
Communism and Fascism are natural political enemies. It was Communists that went off to the gas chambers along with the Jews, Gypsies and Gays systematically. Communists in the US during the rise of Hitler wrote that American Fascism, if it were to rise, would have a theocratic form of nationalism. The GOP certainly has been running for the theocratic vote.
Remember that the fascists tried to get General Butler to execute a coup d'etat against Roosevelt in the 30's. The also campaigned to leave Hitler alone. Many wealthy people, including Edward VIII of England, were personal friends of Hitler. These were the people who believed in things like Social Darwinism.
Most of the descendents of these people are now in the GOP. They tend to trend more libertarian except for Corporate Welfare, they believe that by vitue of their wealth, they are better people than the rest of us slobs. They see the theocrats as a tool to be used for their rise to power.
Anyway, here are some articles:
Rush, Newspeak and Fascism: An exegesis
Neo-fascism and the religious right
The Danger of American Fascism
Facts and Fascism by George Seldes
As wrong as communists are, they're right about one thing, Fascists.
No slave ever got freedom by happily pleasing his masters.
Again, bad logic. You've provided a false dichotomy. Choose the second option all you want, it doesn't mean it's based in reality. NAFTA did send a lot of jobs outside the US, go ask anyone who lost a manufacturing job to Mexico. Outsourcing is a bad deal. It's sending middle class jobs and a strong tax base overseas for what? What has come back? Where are the new industries building on top of this and creating jobs? Why would you even start that industry in this country instead of India?
Your response to someone telling you that you got screwed in a business deal is "don't be a girlie-man economist"? I call it being stupid, but don't take it from me: I Am an Economic Girlie-Man [Motley Fool Take] September 1, 2004
Free Trade only works among equals. We are not equal to any other country or economy in the world. Free Trade is a one way street for this country where we lose. Fair Trade is the only way we can grow and ensure that the promises of globalization are realized.
The current situation is being buoyed by the floating of our currency by China and other developing countries so that they can artifically lower their currency and keep the growth coming at our expense, literally.
You're solution is to smile while we trade good middle class jobs and quality American products for cheap Chinese crap at Wal-Mart and non-service from India. Excuse me if I hold higher asperations for my country.
There's no other way to say it. YOU ARE WRONG. Not just a little wrong, but really really wrong.
.06%. In the previous 8 recoveries, since the Great Depression, the average growth was split at about 13.9% corporate profit and 9.9% labor with private wage growth of 7.2%.
It matters, it matters a lot. Concentration of wealth is the single greatest threat to our democracy and the American Revolution. Go read the Federalist Papers. This "class-warfare claptrap", as you call it, is real. Perhaps Marie Antionette or the Bolsheviks could give you a little refresher. Your example is crap to boot. The current recovery has seen corporate profits grow by 62.2% while private wages have fallen by
There is a point, which can't be defined, where the concentration of wealth becomes so great that the probability that the wealthy will wind up in a losing deal falls to such a point that there is no way to get ahead. New growth is dominated by the wealthy (see the cronyism of 90's IPO's), those without wealth have no choice but to scramble for scraps from the table. This results in defacto tyranny and lack of opportunity. It results in stagnation of innovation, just like when property was controlled entirely by royalty and the church in Europe.
The purpose of the Revolution was to ensure that no citizen is forced to live the life of a slave (obvious exception for slaves, who weren't citizens). When you don't have choices, you are a slave. It doesn't matter if that lack of choice comes from government or private means.
Some men can work 40 hours a week and easily support himself, but there are millions of Americans that can't. The number of people living below the poverty line has increased by 1.4 million in the last year alone. Your argument is like saying the serfs were better off because their lords protected them from roving gangs of bandits. The facts disagree with your estimate of the welfare of the poor in this country.
Go look up Noah Webster, he wrote on the side of the Federalists and either Madison or Hamilton's request (can't remember which). Your arguements are nothing more than straw men. Go read some primary sources, look at the whole picture and apply some logic.
Wealth is real power. If the scales become tipped too far, our entire country will fail. The parent isn't insightful, it's naive. It's a modern version of "If they have no bread, let them eat cake!".
Uhhhh.... I was with you until this:
If you hate what is happening to our country, the USA, then please write the following on the November ballot.
president: Bill O'Reilly
vice-president: Tammy Bruce
Seriously, I've said the same stuff about the situation with India and China, just got finished mentioning it before I saw this post. But, and this is a big but, your conclusion makes abso-fscking-lutely no sense whatsoever. Bill OReilly can't keep left and right straight, much less understand how the hell to deal with pushing Fair Trade instead of Free Trade.
How would an anti-Union, pro-Corporate shill for the right do jack to help the American Worker?
I was really expecting to see you throw support to John Kerry, but WTF? Did I miss a joke somewhere?
Toqueville was the one (IIRC) that said America would prosper until it's citizens found out they could vote to pay themselves. However, that does not mean that all entitlements are vote buying ventures. The fact that it has lasted through three generations when the ones who payed outnumbered those getting paid supports my original statement much more than yours. Yes, that's right, the working population outnumbers the seniors.
If you temporarily go into debt for a couple of years but increase spending, your income is going to have to grow at an exponential rate to get back into the black anytime soon. Even if your prediction of the Bush tax cuts is accurate, that does nothing about the massive damage incurred in the meantime. The economy is doing good enough to justify the costs of those tax cuts.
Military weapons programs are more about vote buying than any social safety net this country has come up with. I wouldn't hold out on the Dems for getting the budget balanced. That's going to take a long time, no matter who is in office. With our current military expenditures in foreign countries that cannot be reduced and the slow growth of our economy, there will be little ability for anyone to change the budget situation. New revenues will need to be used to build up our infrastructure to maintain our ability to compete. We cannot sacrifice that in order to balance the budget. There has been talk for some time that this was part of the strategy of the GOP called "Starve the Beast".
If you come in and kill all these programs, that's a lot of American jobs that are going to go away. The Federal Government is one of the largest employers in the country (if not the largest).
Peace and international support for peacekeeping missions are our best hope. That and taking the kid gloves off with India and China. Underestimating those two will screw us worse than any Bush tax cut ever could. We need to focus on growth, to do that we need investment and discipline. Bush has just ensured that growth is going to be slower than necessary for the next decade.
If 6.5% up to the first $87K per year for guaranteed retirement income that will cover a basic standard of living (minus health care) is draconian, I don't know what to tell you where to put your money. Social Security also pays disability to you if you can no longer work.
As for being a scam, yes there's a problem that the system can only pay for itself if there are more working people than people collecting benefits. However, these previous generations payed for your education, built the roads you use, the sewer systems, etc, etc, etc. Go watch The Life of Brian again where everyone is complaining about the Romans, you'll get the picture.
I can't say I entirely disagree with your position on the boomers, but I do disagree with your example. Your anger is misdirected. Social Security and other programs are not your problem. Your tax bill is not the problem. Your idea is to redivide the pie of your paycheck, you should be worried about how to grow your paycheck. Average incomes have been falling since a peek in the early 70's before either of us were born. You'd be making $6000 more a year in real dollars in 1970 with your current salary. Life is much more competitive for us than our parents. You can blame the previous two generations' culture wars for a lot of this.
What your experiencing is a lack of oppurtunity for growth. The concentration of wealth that occured while everyone was worried that drug using, free loving hippies were going to destroy the world, along with the commies, has put you and the rest of us in the middle class at a competitive disadvantage. The Founding Fathers warned us of this. The Federalists claimed that factionalism among equals would sustain the balance of power. Noah Webster, writing in support of the Federalists, stated that power was actually wealth. If you look at the history of our country, through the 19th century we gave everyone who wanted to move West a family farm. Once the industrial revolution hit, there wasn't as much good farm land left, and family farming wasn't a great way to get ahead. With a growing population, most people wound up working in factories, regulations were required to ensure these people weren't exploited to the point where society was damaged. That's how we wound up with Unions, labor law, 40 hour weeks and Social Security. The first half of the 20th century had a large number of victories which helped to create the prosperity (along with wartime spending, GI Bill) that the boomers have been using up.
Our modern society requires that we have stable foundations to grow, new industries like utilities create that foundation. Innovation won't happen when the only place to build the future is shifting sands. Social safety nets also create that foundation. You can take risks if you have a safety net. If your in the middle class, that safety net can mean the difference between poverty and bouncing back from a risk that goes bad. These anti-government, anti-regulation fools are handing the keys to the kingdom to the hands of our future masters. Concentration of wealth is the greatest threat the our country.
If you want to solve this problem, learn law. I don't mean learn how to sue people, I mean an academic understanding of the ideals of law and it's history. It's just as scientific a field as programming. When you understand this and can apply it to the world around you, you will be able to identify your challenges and your enemies. This country has forgotten it's history and have attached to some mythological idea born of anti-intellectualism. Embrace that history and remember that it is your right, no one grants it to you because the Constitution guarantees it to you, if no one will honor this right then you must take it. If this society or system will not provide it, then it no longer has just authority over you. You are not the one failing to live up to the deal, they are.
As for immediate action, stay calm, vote every chance you get (vote Democrat right now, after the election, different story), study law and le
The basis of authority for Social Security is not morality. It's a recognition that we are not willing to let old people simply starve and die in the streets. If we believe that a person has the right to emergency health care, regardless of ability to pay, then it makes sense to pursue policy that decreases the amount of emergency care required by those who cannot pay. Leaving old folks to fend for themselves creates an environment
Your right about the safety net functions, but this is a recognition of a more advanced and complex society and the rights that must be recognized in order to achieve growth in this modern world. I believe that is a more accurate description of the heart of the New Deal. No law in the US, no matter how "good" or "moral", can use morality as it's basis for authority and remain valid. Laws who's only basis of authority is moral violate the principle of equal protection under the law.
The GOP economic policy of so-called ownership is about taking ownership of risk, not providing opportunity. If you look at all of their proposals and replace the word opportunity with risk they start to match with reality instead of looking like some ideologue's fantasy. Check out this column by Harold Meyerson, which lays out this concept very clearly.
the Outback restaurant at the Indian casino makes sense. G'Day Kemosabe!
(Advance apologies to the cultures I just insulted)
Yes, because rebellion against the US government has been so fscking effective.
Lets see:
Shay's Rebellion
Whiskey Rebellion
Fries's Rebellion
Nat Turner's Southampton Rebellion
John Brown's attack @ Harper's Ferry
Civil War
Waco
Come on people, owning a machine gun doesn't mean crap when the other guy has smart bombs.
The whole idea that we should own guns to keep our own government from opprssing us is just wishful thinking, quit dreaming of Rambo and crack a law book.
I've got more respect for McCain than that. He came out against the SwiftBoat lies, so I don't think one can assume he just sitting around kissing Bush's ass.
Who from the Nixon Whitehouse is either, young enough to run still, not convicted of a felony and a natural born citizen? McCain may be a good bet for 2008's GOP nomination, but I'm not sure how you managed to tie in Nixon. The Bush Whitehouse is the last stand of those old Nixonians.
Uhhh.... yeah it's the Democrats who came up with this horrible tactic.
It's the dems trying to keep insanely far-right wing judges off the bench, using the RULES of the Senate. If you'd read the fine article, you see that they had confirmed over 160 of Bushes nominees and that these 10 are the most extreme of the total bunch he nominated. The GOP used the same tactic against Clinton, but now it's the Dems who came up with this "crazy idea"?
Please explain how the Democrats are trying to get rid of democracy. I do love tinfoil hat inspired rants.
John McCain would never support this. They also won't get both Senators from ME. It won't happen because the GOP can't get 51 votes. This manuever is likely to be divisive like the Gay Marriage Ban, and while most Americans may not be concerned with these little intricacies of the Senate, Senators tend to take it seriously.
Santorum would turn this country into a Judeo-Christian version of Iran if given the chance. Frist is more timid and behind the scenes, but Santorum is a freaking pit-bull for the religious right. My fellow Florida citizens have managed to embaress me about a lot of things, but electing a theocratic loon to the Senate like Santorum takes the cake. I'd have a hard time admitting I was from Penn. every time that guy made the news.
Interesting thought experiment though.
That's interesting. The list of things I'd die for is infinitely shorter than the list of things I'd kill for.
Perhaps your moral view is different than others. Most people can think of things they are will to die for before they can think of things they are willing to kill for.
The Patton quote your paraphrasing is actually supportive of my illutstration. Take the Clausewitz quote, "It is clear that war is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means", and then Patton's quote, "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
You become a martyr, like many Catholic Saints, if you die standing up for your beliefs. You are morally superior in the minds of those who sympathize with your cause. If your goal is to assert your rights, you must be able to defend them. Defending your rights requires power, either you must have that power personally (via wealth) or you must depend on society to provide you with it (via government and law). In other words, when I am standing up for what I believe in morally, I only need to control my actions. If I am standing up for my rights, I require the use of power either personally or through a surrogate like the government to coerce the actions of another.
If you are acting immoral, but are not violating my rights (or anyone else's) then what right do I have to stop you, what surrogate will come to my aid? Where most people become confused is when they only see a moral justification for a law rather than one derived from a definition of rights. The definition of rights is the only valid way to determine a law's viability for producing justice.
Your morals are what you use to keep yourself alive.
Self-sacrificing actions do not keep you alive, yet are considered moral. Martyrs are considered supremely moral in their own culture.
Your rights are what you expect society to grant you in order for you to stay alive.
Again, I'm not only willing to die to defend my rights, I'm willing to kill you if you are denying my rights. Actions that may have been immoral before now become moral if I am defending my rights.
A person's mere willingness to die -- or kill -- doesn't mean anything, because people can be rational or irrational
Your trying to turn a simple illustration into an axiom. Of course the illustration assumes rationality and also assumes threat of equal retribution for aggression. The illustration is of the fact that the law is a series of non-aggression pacts, not statements of moral reasoning.
Today's radicals prefer to base their decisions on some ideology or other, but inevitably an ideology which itself is based on faith.
I noted this by pointing out the similarities between the far-left and far-right and the basis of their ideas in their own concepts of morality. The only faith required in the system I am describing is faith that the government is acting to protect your rights and is not trying to impose a moral worldview. When that faith breaks down, you have to worry about violence erupting over real or percieved injustice.
Then you've got the middle, which is just a bunch of compromisers and appeasers who stand for nothing.
So I either have to believe that my idea of God should drive our law or that my hatred of capitalism should or I stand for nothing? How does that make sense? The Founding Fathers were a bunch of comprimisers and appeasers who believed in nothing? You have no clue what your saying. You are appearently ignorant of the ideological and legal evolution of the American Revolution and Western Civilization.
Politics is about distilling rights. There is no other purpose. Either I can enforce my percieved rights by force, or I can use politics. It is clear that war is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means - Karl von Clausewitz.
A society can be organized in a life-promoting way, or in a way that poses a mortal danger to its members.
This makes no sense. Which society organized itself in a way that poses a mortal danger for it's members? The Jim Jones Cult? Society's organization has far more to do with culture than it does a political system. Is the UK more "life-affirming" than India, they have similiar political systems?
The purpose of law is not to impose views on people, it's to prevent them from killing each other.
That's my point. People are willing to kill each other over many real and percieved injuries. If you cannot figure out how to live side-by-side with people of different cultures and religions, you will wind up killing each other. Western Law is the progression of finding peaceful cohabitation of different religious and cultural views. Rome fell because it couldn't absorb new cultures, only new territory. Beyond that it's an eternal struggle to define rights and refine the law.
History is the only guide to that. But extreme moderates like you do not understand it.
I doubt you want to get into a debate over the history of Western Law with me. I may not be an expert on the subject, but I've studied it far more than most. "Extreme Moderate"? I'll take that as a badge of honor! My basis for authority of law is consistent with history. My ideas for valid political ideas and invalid ones are based in history. I think I have a fairly good understanding of history's role in this discussion.
You think that there is no difference between facts and feelings, no difference between one view and another, no difference between imposing views on people by f
The law is just programming humans. You probably could be a lawyer, the body of law is supposed to be a logically consistent work. Anything inconsistent is supposed to be thrown out. Lawyers do a lot of wrangling, trying to prove authority for laws and trying to disprove it. This guy went through and proved his position, you just had a hunch. Think about it this way, a lot of people had the same hypothosis for a problem that required a very difficult experiment. This guy went out and conducted the experiment and is publishing the results.
Would you claim to have the same level of insight as a scientist who just got published for something you had thought about, but never tested?
The law is published. It's history, it's current status, and precedent. You can access all of it through your local library. Thinking that it should be in unexact language is folly. That's like saying science shouldn't be so precise because memorizing Latin terms is so hard. Western Law traces it's origin to Rome and encompasses every aspect of human activity. Our current legal system is a iterative development project that has been worked on for 2200 years. The precision of language and dedication to dialectic reasoning is what has made it such a useful tool for society. You might understand how a monolithic kernel works, does that mean Linus should make you top priority for patches?
If you want to change society, learn how to change the law. If you want to change the law, RTFM.
While I think the moral-right are a bunch of slow learners, I don't dismiss the threat they pose. If the Bushies were interested in simply paying them lip-service, they would have stuck with the states-rights position on gay marriage, since that is seen as a Conservative position. I also think you have to realize that the faith-based program initiatives, including charter schools, don't actually save any money. That is how they were sold to the moderate Conservatives, as a way to get the social spending accounts off their books and on someone elses. The truth of the matter is that most moderate Conservatives think that a lot of this posturing is politically convenient lip-service, but in truth it's become more than that lately.
You could argue that the current round of unconstitutional initiatives proposed by our great leader are still just feed for the base, but I think Bush and Co. do truly support the base's position, just not as fanatically. That's why they're willing to keep putting out this crap legislation, if something sticks, it's a happy day for the White House.
Your morals are what you are willing to die for. Your rights are what you're willing to kill others for.
There may be a lot of things I'm willing to die for, but the list is shorter when I ask what things I'm willing to kill another human for. In other words, I don't give a damn what you're willing to die for, but I'm sure as hell willing to kill you to protect my rights.
The law cannot dictate your moral behavior solely without violating your rights. Faith based Federal programs are a horribly bad idea because there is no way to determine that services are provided without duress, thus inviting the abuse of equality under the law. That said, if you try to impose your moral view on someone else, you're violating their rights. That's why there will be gay marriage in this country without a Consitutional Amendment. There is no legitamite interest of government in discriminating against gays over a secular contract of marriage, only one of cultural morality, which is not valid in a political structure that has no provision for a dominant culture or religion.
Politics isn't centrally about compromise, that's just part of the mechanics. Politics is ultimately about distilling rights so as to create justice, I'm not sure how you managed to get compromise out of my posts. It's probably best that you don't participate in politics, as your moral blinders probably make it impossible for you to formulate valid political ideas. After all, your morals are yours, not some absolute. You have no more authority to pursue youre moral worldview politically than anyone else. This means that, ultimately, you cannot impose your view without violating the principle of equality under the law. Unless you can decrease the arbitrariness of life for all cultures and religions equally, your law is unjust and counter to 1500 years of Western progression.